bacula-devel

I am proud to announce the fifth iteration of my Bacula packaging for
Debian. It was released on Dec 24, but only now have i got to announce it.
---------------------
* bacula-director-mysql postinst completely redone from scratch.
- Postinst seems to be much more robust than ever, and hopefully able to
cope with most situations.
- Checks connectivity before trying to create db/tables/user ( TODO:
implement checks during 'config' phase )
- The default debconf-generated installed is much more complete, and
includes support for db-client passwords out of the box.
* bacula-director-common & bacula-director-mysql adapted as a result of
changes in bacula-director-mysql
* Several typos corrected, thanks to Frank Lenaerts
* Fixed a sure FTBFS before it even happens :) -- spotted by Frank Lenaerts.
* Frank Lenaerts did most investigation work needed to be able to backport
Bacula to Woody. Expect to have woody binaries available sometime ( either
he or I will make them available ).
-----------------
The debs are available for download at SourceForge since they were
released, and at my APT repository ( deb
http://devel.adv-solutions.net/debian unstable main )
All bug reports, comments, suggestions, etc. are welcome.
Best wishes,
J.L.

José Luis Tallón wrote:
>
> I am proud to announce the fifth iteration of my Bacula packaging for
> Debian. It was released on Dec 24, but only now have i got to announce it.
I've tried this - it seems to work mostly. I appreciate the APT
repository. Thanks.
However install stomps on existing config files (bacula-dir.conf etc)
but doesn't update bacula-dir.conf.dpkg-dist.
Happy New Year :-)
Dick

At 23:09 31/12/2003, you wrote:
>Jos=E9 Luis Tall=F3n wrote:
>>I am proud to announce the fifth iteration of my Bacula packaging for=20
>>Debian. It was released on Dec 24, but only now have i got to announce it.
>
>I've tried this - it seems to work mostly.
Mostly? I hope you will report *each and every* bug you discover so that i=
=20
can fix it promptly :)
>I appreciate the APT repository. Thanks.
You are very welcome.
It will (hopefully) soon be part of Debian's archive, as soon as either my=
=20
sponsor uploads it or i become a full-fledged DD ;)
>However install stomps on existing config files (bacula-dir.conf etc) but=
=20
>doesn't update bacula-dir.conf.dpkg-dist.
Hmmm... that shouldn't be the case....
* 'bacula-director-mysql.postinst' creates the customized config in=20
/etc/bacula/bacula-dir.conf.dpkg-dist
* 'bacula-director-common' s /usr/lib/bacula/postinst-common:
- selects destination: /etc/bacula/bacula-dir.conf if it doesn't already=
=20
exist, /etc/bacula/bacula-dir.conf.dpkg-dist otherwise
- does the final processing in the config file and removes the now=20
unnecessary /etc/bacula/bacula-dir.conf.dpkg-tmp
* hardens permissions appropiately.
Please confirm this behaviour and report any suboptimal behaviour observed,=
=20
so that i can polish the last details before moving on to packaging=20
bacula-1.32e.
Thanks.
>Happy New Year :-)
Same to you all :)
>Dick
J.L.=20

José Luis Tallón wrote:
>> However install stomps on existing config files (bacula-dir.conf etc)
>> but doesn't update bacula-dir.conf.dpkg-dist.
>
>
> Hmmm... that shouldn't be the case....
I tried a reinstall and there were no noticeable updates to /etc/bacula.
I.e all dates, sizes etc of the config files remained the same.
However I did get this error from aptitude:
E: Couldn't configure pre-depend bacula-common for bacula-sd, probably a
dependency cycle.
I'll let you know if I notice anything else.
Dick

José Luis Tallón wrote:
> At 23:09 31/12/2003, you wrote:
>
>> José Luis Tallón wrote:
>>
>>> I am proud to announce the fifth iteration of my Bacula packaging for
>>> Debian.
> Mostly? I hope you will report *each and every* bug you discover so that
> i can fix it promptly :)
>> However install stomps on existing config files (bacula-dir.conf etc)
>> but doesn't update bacula-dir.conf.dpkg-dist.
FYI:
It stomped on my modified version of
/usr/lib/bacula/delete_catalog_backup too :-(
I Only just noticed! It can't be that important.
I see all the files in that directory have been replaced. Isn't there
something new in Debian where the MD5 of the files was going to be
checked before updating. Maybe these are good candidates for that or
maybe one should put modified scripts elsewhere.
Dick

At 19:56 06/01/2004, you wrote:
>Jos=E9 Luis Tall=F3n wrote:
>>At 23:09 31/12/2003, you wrote:
>>I hope you will report *each and every* bug you discover so that i can=20
>>fix it promptly :)
>
>>>However install stomps on existing config files (bacula-dir.conf etc)=20
>>>but doesn't update bacula-dir.conf.dpkg-dist.
This really bothers me: the postinst is supposed to write the modified=20
config to /etc/bacula/bacula-dir.conf , or=20
/etc/bacula/bacula-dir.conf.dpkg-dist if the former already exists.
>FYI:
>It stomped on my modified version of /usr/lib/bacula/delete_catalog_backup=
=20
>too :-(
Those were supposed to be "parts of the program", that is why they are=20
placed under /usr/lib/bacula instead of /etc/bacula. Therefore, that they=20
have been overwritten is only to be expected. Another different question=20
would be whether they are supposed to be modified by the user under normal=
=20
operation: in that case, that file should be moved somewhere else.
>I Only just noticed! It can't be that important.
It isn't :)
>I see all the files in that directory have been replaced.
Correct
>Isn't there something new in Debian where the MD5 of the files was going=20
>to be checked before updating.
That's not new... it has been there for a long time. However, this=20
mechanism is only employed for files marked as "conffiles" that is, those=20
who are supposed to contain valuable user configurations.
>Maybe these are good candidates for that or maybe one should put modified=
=20
>scripts elsewhere.
Scripts meant to be modified should go under /etc/bacula[/scripts]
This might mean i misplaced delete_catalog_backup under /usr/lib/bacula=20
when it belongs in /etc/bacula/scripts... Kern will have to clarify us(me)=
=20
what purpose were those scripts intended to serve and hence where should=20
they be placed.
>Dick
Thanks. Keep the bug reports / unexpected behaviour report coming. They are=
=20
always appreciated :)
Best,
J.L.=20

On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:27:42PM +0100, Jos=E9 Luis Tall=F3n wrote:
>>FYI:
>>It stomped on my modified version of /usr/lib/bacula/delete_catalog_bac=
kup=20
>>too :-(
>
>Those were supposed to be "parts of the program", that is why they are=20
>placed under /usr/lib/bacula instead of /etc/bacula. Therefore, that the=
y=20
>have been overwritten is only to be expected. Another different question=
=20
>would be whether they are supposed to be modified by the user under norm=
al=20
>operation: in that case, that file should be moved somewhere else.
i did not think this file was a user modifiable file,
my mandrake rpm puts it under /usr/lib/bacula as well
L.
--=20
Luca Berra -- bluca@...
Communication Media & Services S.r.l.
/"\
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
X AGAINST HTML MAIL
/ \

On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 21:27, Jos=C3=A9 Luis Tall=C3=B3n wrote:
> At 19:56 06/01/2004, you wrote:
> >Jos=C3=A9 Luis Tall=C3=B3n wrote:
> >>At 23:09 31/12/2003, you wrote:
> >>I hope you will report *each and every* bug you discover so that i ca=
n=20
> >>fix it promptly :)
> >
> >>>However install stomps on existing config files (bacula-dir.conf etc=
)=20
> >>>but doesn't update bacula-dir.conf.dpkg-dist.
>=20
> This really bothers me: the postinst is supposed to write the modified=20
> config to /etc/bacula/bacula-dir.conf , or=20
> /etc/bacula/bacula-dir.conf.dpkg-dist if the former already exists.
>=20
> >FYI:
> >It stomped on my modified version of /usr/lib/bacula/delete_catalog_ba=
ckup=20
> >too :-(
>=20
> Those were supposed to be "parts of the program", that is why they are=20
> placed under /usr/lib/bacula instead of /etc/bacula. Therefore, that th=
ey=20
> have been overwritten is only to be expected. Another different questio=
n=20
> would be whether they are supposed to be modified by the user under nor=
mal=20
> operation: in that case, that file should be moved somewhere else.
>=20
> >I Only just noticed! It can't be that important.
>=20
> It isn't :)
>=20
> >I see all the files in that directory have been replaced.
>=20
> Correct
>=20
> >Isn't there something new in Debian where the MD5 of the files was goi=
ng=20
> >to be checked before updating.
>=20
> That's not new... it has been there for a long time. However, this=20
> mechanism is only employed for files marked as "conffiles" that is, tho=
se=20
> who are supposed to contain valuable user configurations.
>=20
> >Maybe these are good candidates for that or maybe one should put modif=
ied=20
> >scripts elsewhere.
>=20
> Scripts meant to be modified should go under /etc/bacula[/scripts]
> This might mean i misplaced delete_catalog_backup under /usr/lib/bacula=
=20
> when it belongs in /etc/bacula/scripts... Kern will have to clarify us(=
me)=20
> what purpose were those scripts intended to serve and hence where shoul=
d=20
> they be placed.
The script delete_catalog_backup as well as make_catalog_backup are used
in the default bacula-dir.conf file and are intended to show the user
how to backup the Bacula catalog. Essentially an ASCII dump is made in
the make_catalog_backup, which is then backed up by Bacula, and finally
deleted in delete_catalog_backup.
When the Bacula Makefile does an install, it insures that the .conf
files are not overwritten, but if the user has modified any of the other
files such as mtx-changer, ... he must make a copy before doing an
install. They *could* be protected, but this creates a lot of old
"unused" files, and in most cases it is important to have the script
files updated.
>=20
> >Dick
>=20
>=20
> Thanks. Keep the bug reports / unexpected behaviour report coming. They=
are=20
> always appreciated :)
>=20
>=20
> Best,
> J.L.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials.
> Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM=
's
> Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admi=
n.
> Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id371&op=C3=8Ck
> _______________________________________________
> Bacula-devel mailing list
> Bacula-devel@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel

José Luis Tallón wrote:
> Scripts meant to be modified should go under /etc/bacula[/scripts]
> This might mean i misplaced delete_catalog_backup under /usr/lib/bacula
> when it belongs in /etc/bacula/scripts... Kern will have to clarify
> us(me) what purpose were those scripts intended to serve and hence where
> should they be placed.
What you've done makes sense. I kind of worked it out as I pressed the
send key :-)
Dick